205

UDK 903(4)"631\634">2-536.6Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII (2010)

Dancein Prehistoric Europe

Yosef GarfinkelInstitute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IL

garfinkel@mscc.huji.ac.il

Introduction

This study presents and analyses dancing activitiesin prehistoric Europe. This subject covers such a vastgeographical area and large span of time, that wemust limit our discussion to a number of case stud-ies in order to demonstrate the types of evidencethat we have on this very elusive aspect of humanbehaviour. Researching the dance of past societies isusually limited to historical periods, and relies onwritten sources or graphic representations of danc-ing. The history of dance in the ancient world hasfocused mainly on drawings on Greek pottery of themid-first millennium BC. Some attention has beendevoted to the description of dancing in PharaonicEgyptian (the second and third millennia BC). In myprevious work, I enlarged the historical perspectiveof dance to include the Early Neolithic period in theNear East, up to c. 9000 BC. Recently, however, itcan be shown that the history of dance can be start-ed as early as the first appearance of modern hu-mans in Europe, nearly 40 000 years ago.

Ancient human dance is a very neglected topic ofstudy. Seldom can one find articles dealing with

dance, while books are almost non-existent. Thestudy of dance by archaeologists is challenging fortwo main reasons:

! Dancing activity does not leave visible remains,so the chances of finding foot-prints in a circle, or agroup of human skeletons trapped and buried dur-ing a dance are minimal. Until relevant data becomeavailable, we are dealing with a very fragmented re-cord.

" Modern archaeological and anthropological re-search evolved in western civilization, which is do-minated by a Christian point of view. Unlike mostother religions, its attitude to dance is negative. Inthe New Testament, the term is mentioned onlyonce, in the extremely dramatic dance of Salome,which concluded with the beheading of John theBaptist (Mark 6, 21–26). In contrast, the Old Testa-ment described dancing dozens of times, using tendifferent verbs (Gruber 1981). Indeed, dance is notpart of any official Christian liturgy. The unaware-ness of western scholarship of the importance of

ABSTRACT – Indications for dancing activities in prehistoric Europe appeared as early as modernhumans, at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic era. However, only limited data are available for thisstage. In the Neolithic period, evidence for dancing appeared at many more sites, but the territoryis confined to south-eastern Europe. The dancing in this case is probably part of the ‘Neolithic pack-age’, which diffused from the Near East.

IZVLE!EK – Prvi indici in omejeni podatki o plesu so v prazgodovinski Evropi povezani s pojavommodernega !loveka v starej"em paleolitiku. V neolitiku je podatkov mnogo ve! in vsi so omejeni naprostor jugovzhodne Evrope. Ples je bil verjetno del neolitskega paketa, ki se je "iril iz Bli#njega Vzhoda.

KEY WORDS – prehistoric dance; Upper Paleolithic; Neolithic; decorated pottery; figurines

DOI> 10.4312\dp.37.18

Yosef Garfinkel

206

dance in human activity must beseen against this background. Thisunawareness combined with frag-mentary evidence resulted in dancebeing overlooked even in the veryfew cases in which it can be recogni-zed. Thus, the first step in develop-ing dance research is to create theintellectual environment which rec-ognizes dance as an important hu-man activity, and opens our mind tothe evidence available to reconstructdance in the past.

Dance is a rhythmical movementwhich can be classified as a form ofnon-verbal communication. It is notlimited to humans and is preformedby various animals such as bees,birds and mammals. In the animalworld, it is always performed by asolo individual. In human society,dance is usually preformed by groupsof people, and in a variety of situati-ons. The importance of dance in hu-man evolution has been specificallyemphasized by McNeill (1995), whilemany other scholars have written general intro-ductions as well as discussions of various aspects ofdance (see, for example, Sachs 1952; Lange 1976;Royce 1977; Hanna 1987). In traditional societies,dance is a major social activity, as demonstrated bythe many dancing activities of the San Bushmen ofSouth Africa (Marshall 1969; Biesele 1978; Katz1982). Part of this rich ethnographic data, as well asof other human groups, was summarised in Dancingat the Dawn of Agriculture (Garfinkel 2003). An im-portant observation is that, after hours of rhythmicalcircular dancing, a few of the participants often fellinto a trance. The trance was understood to be a formof contact between the community and supernaturalpowers; in other words, a mystical event, the core ofreligious experience. The clear connection betweendance and trance is probably the main reason for thedepiction of intense dancing in many religions cere-monies.

Elsewhere, I have summarised the implications ofvarious ethnographic observations for the study ofdance (Garfinkel 2003), some of which have directimplications for the archaeological data:

! Dancing is an activity done at the community le-vel and reflects interaction between people.

" Dancing is performed in an open space, and notwithin any structure.

# The activity involves men and women in closeproximity, although they do not mix in the samerow or circle.

$ The dancing is often performed with special dec-orative elements: coiffure, head coverings, masks,body paintings and dress. In many cases, the dan-cers use very elaborate accessories whose prepa-ration begins months before the event itself.

% Dancing is usually performed at night.& Dancing is accompanied by rhythmic music: sin-

ging, clapping hands, or musical instruments suchas drums or rattles.

' Dance is an ecstatic event, involving an alteredstate of consciousness (trance) and is considereda deep spiritual experience by the participants.

The central role of dance in modern hunter-gathe-rer societies, like the Bushmen of South Africa or Au-stralian Aboriginals, clearly indicates that dance musthave been a primal form of human behaviour in pre-history, and played a major role in human evolution(McNeill 1995). Thus, if we wish to have a betterunderstanding of prehistoric societies, it is our dutyto trace dance activities when possible. The identifi-cation of dance on ancient depictions is not always

Fig. 1. Dancing male figures. 1. An engraved ivory from Geissen-klösterle (after Conard et al. 2006.Fig. 16.2). Applied human figureson pottery vessels from: 2. Villanykovesd (after Kalicz 1970.Pl. 52);3. Scinteia (after Mantu 1992.Fig. 1.2); 4. Holasovice (after Gimbu-tas 1982.Fig. 143); 5. Trusessti (after Gimbutas 1982.Fig. 144); 6.Trusessti (after Nitu 1968.Fig. 1.1).

Dance in Prehistoric Europe

207

clear, but there are a few factors which help us torecognise dance when it appeared. Complete scenes,on either stone slabs or pottery vessels, usually bearthe following characteristics:! More than one figure is depicted on the item." The figures in any particular scene are usually

identical.# The figures are portrayed in a dynamic posture,

sometimes with bent body, or bent arms and legs.

In light of the above mentioned factors obtainedfrom ethnographic observations, and the artistic cri-teria, we will examine some samples of dancing acti-vities in Prehistoric Europe, first from the Upper Pa-leolithic era and then from the Neolithic.

The Palaeolithic

Upper Palaeolithic (Aurignacian)In recent years, it became apparent that the earliestmodern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in Europelived in the Swabian Jura region of southwesternGermany, and dated to c. 40 000 years BP (Conardand Bolus 2003; Conard et al. 2006). In the cavesof Geissenklösterle, Hohle Fels and Bocksteinhöhle,

remarkable numbers of symbolic artifacts werefound, including anthropomorphic and zoomorphicfigurines, an engraved human figure with benthands and legs, eight bone and ivory flutes, andlarge quantities of ornaments (Conard 2009; Conardet al. 2006; 2009).

The engraved human figure with bent hands andlegs was found at Geissenklösterle (Fig. 1.1; Conardet al. 2006.Fig. 16:2). At the time of discovery, theearly date of the item was not yet determined anddid not receive much attention. About ten yearsago, it was suggested that the figure shows the con-stellation Orion combined with a pregnancy calen-dar (Rappenglück 2003). However, before jumpingto explanations in the sky, we should try to findexplanations on the ground. The elongated humanfigure is presented as a silhouette. It has an elonga-ted head, neck and torso, all much longer then inactual human anatomy. The two arms bend upwardsand end at the same height as the head. This isclearly a non-functional position and the hands donot hold any object. The proportions of the lowerbody, in contrast to the upper part, are shorter thanin humans. The pelvic area is wider than the torso.

The legs are bent slightlydownwards, and are not sym-metrical with each other. Aprotruding element betweenthe legs seems to be the maleorgan, but since it is as longas the legs, it may be under-stood as an animal tail. Arti-stically, the figure is symme-trically balanced from bothleft to right, and the upperpart to the lower. This mayexplain the distortion of theactual anatomy of the headand sex organ. The generalimpression is created by thebent hands and legs, whichgive the figure a dynamic ap-pearance, as if it were danc-ing. Many similar representa-tions of dancing male figuresare known from the Neolithicperiod of Southeast Europeand the Near East (Fig. 1.2–6; Garfinkel 2003). Withits general masculine outline,the engraved figure from Geis-senklösterle appears to bemale, and is clearly different

Fig. 2. Engraved stone slabs with dancing female figures: 1, 4. Gönner-dorf (after Bosinski and Fischer 1974); 2–4. Lalinde (after Marshack1972.308–309).

Yosef Garfinkel

208

from typical representations of females in Palaeoli-thic art. These ‘Venus’ type female figurines are pre-sented with extremely emphasized breasts and but-tocks, as can be clearly seen in the recently disco-vered ivory statuette from the nearby and contem-porary site of Hohle fels (Conard 2009). This engra-ving presents the earliest known representation ofa dancing human figure.

Remains of eight flutes were found in these samecaves at the Swabian Jura, some made of animal bo-nes and some of ivory (Conard et al. 2009). Thesemusical instruments were not played at concerts,but were probably used in dance ceremonies. Thecombination of music and dance is very common,and appeared in every human society: hunters andgatherers, farmers, pastoralists and urban dwellers.Even the Bushmen of South Africa, whose materialculture is rather simple, without elaborate music in-struments, use plain rattles in dance ceremonies(Marshall 1969; Biesele 1978; Katz 1982).

From ethnographic observations, it is clear that dan-cing ceremonies are usually characterized by elabo-rate body decoration, clothing and dance accesso-

ries. The preparation of these accessories was some-times begun months ahead. Indeed, many body or-naments and a rich assemblage of beads and pen-dants were found in excavations at these caves (Co-nard et al. 2006.Fig. 17; Hahn 1972). The combina-tion of the three elements – music, a human figurepresented in a dynamic body posture, and rich beadsfor body decoration – is not accidental, and can betaken as a clear indication of the existence of elabo-rate rituals involving dancing ceremonies amongearly modern humans in Europe.

Upper Palaeolithic (Magdalenian)In the much later Magdalenian period, c. 14–12 mil-lennia BC, an unusual assemblage of dancing figureswas found at Gönnerdorf, an open-air site on theeastern bank of the Rhine near Koblenz in Germany(Bosinski 1970; Bosinski and Fischer 1974). Thisrich artistic assemblage is composed of 224 anthro-pomorphic figures engraved on 87 stone plaques and11 anthropomorphic figurines. The engravings onthe stone plaques usually present groups of figures,while the isolated representations occurred on bro-ken plaques, so they are probably a part of a largergroup. Usually, the figures were depicted in a row,

one behind the other, in pro-file, most often facing to theright, with up to 10 such figu-res in a row (Fig. 2.1). Ano-ther type of engraving pre-sents only two figures in eachscene, facing each other (Fig.2.2). All these engravings areof girls or young women inhalf crouching positions, so-metimes with their armspartly raised. The excavatorssuggested that these figuresare dancing (Bosinski 1970.93–94; Bosinski and Fischer1974). Indeed, these groupsof figures are not presentedin a daily activity, like hunt-ing, fighting, or holding ababy. The female figures arepresented in rows, posed in adynamic body gesture, bothfeatures of dancing.

Dance research commonlyclassifies dance into three ba-sic types: circle dance, linedance and couple dance (Gar-finkel 2003.41–43). It seemsFig. 3. Neolithic sites in southeast Europe with dancing figures.

Dance in Prehistoric Europe

209

that at Gönnerdorf, we can see two different typesof dance. The figures presented one behind the otherin profile may indicate a line or a circle dance. Butas they are usually depicted facing to the right, thisis probably a circle dance with a counter-clockwisemovement, typical of dancers in a circle (Garfinkel2003.44–47). The scenes with only two figures fac-ing each other probably indicate a couples’ dance.

Eleven pendant figurines, some 5% of the humanrepresentations at Gönnerdorf, were found, posingyoung females in the same gesture as on the engra-vings. Sometimes, a few such pendants were foundin a pit, indicating that they were meant to repre-sent groups of young females dancing together.

Several similar depictions have been reported fromthe site of Lalinde in the Dordogne, France (Fig. 2.3–4). In each, a number of female figures appear in thesame general silhouette that characterised the fe-male figures from Gönnerdorf. They appear one be-hind the other, in a row, which indicate that theyare following each other, probably in a circle. In hisdetailed discussion on these engravings, as well assimilar items from other sites, Marshack (1972.305–313) defined them as ‘buttocks form’. However, thepossibility that these engravings represent dancingfigures has not been taken into consideration. Thisis not surprising, as in most of the classic books on

the art of Palaeolithic Europe the term dance is notfound in the index at the end of the book. However,the dynamic body gesture, the appearance of a num-ber of identical human figures, their arrangement ina row, clearly indicate a group of dancing females.

The dancing characteristic of these scenes and figu-rines is achieved by a few aspects:a. The same body gestures are repeated for all the

individuals.b. In each row of figures, all the individuals face the

same direction of movement.c. Most of the rows are moving to the right, which

in a circle would create a counter clockwise move-ment.

d. Heads were not portrayed, as the scenes empha-sise the group, rather than the individual. Thischaracterised most of the dancing scenes (Garfin-kel 2003).

The Neolithic

Dancing figures appeared in many Neolithic sites insoutheast Europe (Fig. 3). This is part of a largerNeolithic artistic tradition whose earlier manifesta-tion is known as early as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Bof the Levant in the 9th millennium BC (Bienert andFritz 1989; Molist 1998; Garfinkel 2003). Later dan-cing figures appeared at Neolithic and Chalcolithic

sites throughout the Near East: Mesopota-mia, Iran, Anatolia, Cyprus and Egypt (Gar-finkel 2003). In the 6th millennium BC, dan-cing figures appeared in Southeast Europeas well (Figs. 1.2–6, 4–7). In my book, pub-lished in 2003, examples from 41 sites werepresented from Greece (4 sites), Bulgariaand former Yugoslavia (5 sites), Romaniaand the Dniester Basin (17 sites) and Hun-gary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (15sites). The other parts of Europe were notincluded in that study, since dancing figu-res are not a characteristic feature of sitesthere, although some extremely rare exam-ples are known (see, for example, Nitu1970.Fig. 5.3; Müller-Karpe 1968.Pls. 199.G, 222.6–7, 223.1; Von Rimute 1994.Fig.41, Pl. 52.1–2).

Over the years, three different interpreta-tions have been suggested for these depic-tions:! Representations of supernatural powers,gods and goddesses. The most influentialscholar supporting this interpretation was

Fig. 4. Applied human figures on pottery vessels: 1. Szeg-vár-Tüzköves (after Korek 1987.Fig. 24); 2. Gumelnitta (afterIonescu 1974.Fig. 1.1); 3. Gomolava (after Gimbutas 1982.Pl. 172).

Yosef Garfinkel

210

M. Gimbutas, who created a whole pan-theon of prehistoric goddesses: ‘birth-giv-ing goddess’, ‘birth-giving goddess in theshape of a toad’, ‘bee goddess’, ‘bird god-dess’ and ‘snake goddess’ (Gimbutas 1982;1989). This interpretation has been accep-ted by others (see, for example, Kalicz 1970.52, Pl. 52; Mantu 1992.315). As a result,the two human figures on a large potteryvessel from Dumesti in Moldavia, Romania,relating to the Cucuteni A3 culture, havebeen interpreted as two goddesses, one ofthem in a birth-giving position (Maxim-Alaiba 1987.270).

! Representations of dancing figures, basi-cally humans, in cultic activity (Nitu 1970;Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974; Garfinkel 2003).

" Representation of cultic marriage hasbeen suggested in one case. A large potteryjar from Scinteia, attributed to the Cucute-ni culture, was decorated with two appliedhuman figures, a male and a female, andwas understood as representing ‘the greatgoddess’ and her acolyte or the divine cou-ple: ‘hieros gamos’ (Mantu 1992.315).

The early agricultural communities of Southeast Eu-rope in the 6th–4th millennia BC produced largequantities of art and cult objects, such as figurines,statues, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic jars, ar-chitectural models and decorated pottery vessels.Dancing figures are a common motif on decoratedpottery vessels and have been reported from at least41 sites. From a technical point of view, most of theitems from southeast Europe were decorated withplastic applications. Only a few items were incised,and still fewer were painted. The most common findwas a broken sherd with one figure. The completevessels that have been discovered bear the follow-ing characteristics (Fig. 4):# More than one figure is depicted on the item’s pe-

rimeter. ! The figures on the same vessel are usually identi-

cal. Only when we have representations of mixedgender, are males and females portrayed differ-ently (Fig. 5).

" The figures are portrayed in a dynamic posture,usually with bent arms and legs.

$ No other scenes depicting interaction betweenpeople have been reported.

These features suggest the following points:

# A single anthropomorphic figure on a sherdshould be interpreted as part of a dancing scene,with several identical figures originally having beendepicted around the vessel.

! The scenes represent ordinary human beings indancing positions and not supernatural powers, assometimes suggested – e.g. ‘male gods’, ‘the greatgoddess’ (Kalicz 1970.52, Pl. 52; Mantu 1992.315),or the female pantheon created by Gimbutas, withher ‘birth-giving goddess’, ‘birth-giving goddess inthe shape of a toad’, ‘bee goddess’, ‘bird goddess’and ‘snake goddess’.

Close connections existed between the Near Easternand the European artistic traditions, as was empha-sised by Nitu (1970):# The dancing figures appear in the area of Europe

closest to Anatolia.! This motif appears in the sixth and fifth millennia

BC in both regions." In this period, both regions underwent a similar

socio-economic development – the process of‘Neolithisation’, i.e. the adoption of subsistencestrategies for food production and the clusteringof large communities into village-type settlements.

Fig. 5. Applied human figures on pottery vessels: 1. Dumesti(after Maxim-Alaiba 1987.Fig. 13); 2. Scinteia (after Mantu1993.Figs 2–3).

Dance in Prehistoric Europe

211

! In stylistic terms, many of the European figuresappear in the same dynamic postures used in theNear East, and in cases where large parts of thevessels have been preserved, more than one fig-ure appears.

On the basis of these points, it seems that the danc-ing motif should be interpreted similarly both in theNear East and in Europe. During the process of Neo-lithisation, some Near Eastern myths and religiouspractices were adopted by European communities(Garfinkel 1998). The dancing-figure motif is one as-pect of this complicated and protracted process.

Dance scenes on pottery vessels

The examples in Figures 1.2–6, 4–5, 6.1–2 illustratethe most common way in which dancing figures weredepicted on pottery vessels in the Neolithic period.In southeast Europe, the figures were usually appliedto the vessel before firing. In the Near East, the de-piction of the motif was done mainly by painting.

Another category of dancing figure is the ‘vessel ofthe reel type’, known from a number of sites in Ro-

mania related to the Cucuteni A3 culture of the late-fifth millennium BC (Fig. 6.3; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974.Figs. 1–3; Dragomir 1987.Fig. 1; Mantu 1993.131–132). These are either stands or high pedestal bowls,with four to six identical schematic anthropomorphicfigures around their circumference. The areas be-tween the openings are identical to each other, andwere designed in the shape of a schematic anthropo-morphic torso and emphasised buttocks, as seen fromthe back. The heads, arms and sometimes the legsare not portrayed. These items concentrate on thecircle of dancers rather than specific individuals.

Dancing figurines

One of the outstanding phenomena in southeast Eu-rope is the appearance of anthropomorphic figuri-nes that depict dancing figures. The clearest exampleis known from Dumesti, Moldavia, Romania, relatedto the Cucuteni A3 culture and dated to the late-fifthmillennium BC. A large pottery jar was found buriedwith 12 figurines, six females and six males. Theyare depicted in dynamic postures, and were inter-preted as dancing figures (Fig. 7; Maxim-Alaiba 1987.270). It is curious that the shape of both the femaleand male figurines resemble the shape of the femaleand the male figure found on the pithos from Scin-teia (Fig. 5.2).

Before being buried, the 12 figurines were probablyused as three-dimensional models to show dancing.Ethnographic observations clearly indicate that mixeddances are not common in traditional societies, soit is hard to believe that the 12 figurines were arran-ged together in a circle. They may have been usedfor two different purposes. They could have beenused to represent two separate dancing circles, onemale, and the other female. Or perhaps a couples’dance was represented, with six mixed couples.Many similar anthropomorphic figurines were foundin very large quantities in numerous Cucuteni sites,and possibly a good number of these also representdancing figures. Since dancing is a large group acti-vity, the association of these figurines with dancingcan explain why so many are found.

In the Near East, no dancing figurines are known todate. Only in pre-dynastic Egyptian graves have anumber of dancing female figurines been found. AtMa’mariya, two items were found in Grave 2 and 16items in Grave 186 (Needler 1984.336–343). As inthe European examples, the Egyptian clay figurineswere depicted in the same body pose as the dancingfigures on pottery vessels. In both cases, the figures

Fig. 6. Applied female figures on pottery vessels:1. Traian (after Dumitrescu 1974.Fig. 232.1, Nitu1970.Fig. 10.1); 2. Birlalessti (after Nitu 1968.Fig.3.1); 3. Pottery ‘reel vessel’ from Frumussica (afterMarinescu-Bîlcu 1974.Fig. 3.1a–b).

Yosef Garfinkel

212

had their arms lifted upwards, withhands curving inwards.

Discussion

Dance is not performed in isolation,but as part of a more complex ritua-listic activity. Rituals and ceremoniesare elaborate events, with a complexset of actions, involving talking (pra-ying, blessing, story telling), eating(drinking, feasting), physical gestu-res (clapping hands, putting onehands on others’ heads) and move-ment (dancing, moving in proces-sion, circling). While feasting doesleave clear and direct archaeologicalremains (see, for example, Dietlerand Hayden 2001; Goring-Morrisand Horwitz 2007; Ben-Shlomo etal. 2009), dancing leaves only elusiveevidence. Thus, researching dancingactivities of the past is mainly dependent on the iden-tification and analysis of dancing scenes, many ofwhich have not even been recognised as displayingdance.

Two basic patterns can be observed in prehistoricEuropean dance. For the hunter-gatherer societies ofthe Upper Palaeolithic, evidence is very sporadic.The few depictions which do exist are spread over avast geographical area and an immense time span,almost 30 000 years. Nevertheless, they include twosignificant case studies. The earlier finds, from theAurignacian caves of Swabian Jura are the earliestknown confirmation of modern human figures inEurope, and they are alongside a dancing figure, mu-sical instruments and body decorations. These findsrelate to all the basic aspects of dancing: dynamicbody gestures, with the hands bent upward and thelegs bent downward, musical instruments in theform of eight flutes and elaborate body ornamentsused as dance accessories. The later case study is theMagdalenian site of Gönnerdorf, where 224 youngfemale dancing figures were found engraved onstone slabs, plus an additional 11 figurines of youngdancing females. This site produced more dancingfigures then all the other prehistoric sites combined.Clearly, intensive ceremonies involving dance tookplace at this location, perhaps initiation rites for girls.The site of Lalinde in the Dordogne produced a few

similar engravings, but no more then 10 young fe-male dancers were presented.

In the Neolithic period, dancing figures were com-monly depicted on pottery vessels. The rounded ves-sel creates an ideal three-dimensional surface onwhich to present a circle of dancing figures. Some-times, the figures were applied or painted, and some-times the clay was melded to create human figuresin the round. In one example, 12 dancing figurineswere buried together, apparently having been usedas a three-dimensional model for dancing. The dan-cing activity of the Neolithic period is much more li-mited in time and space than the Upper Palaeolithic.It is concentrated in southeast Europe, and lastedaround 3000 years.

In the Upper Palaeolithic period, there are no ear-lier or contemporary dance depictions in the NearEast. In the Neolithic period, however, the dancemotif first developed in the Near East, and then,with the diffusion of agriculture, moved into Eu-rope. It first appeared in Greece and Bulgaria, theareas closest to Anatolia, and later spread north, tosites in the former Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary,and up to the Czech Republic. Dance was part of the‘Neolithic package’ and was probably closely asso-ciated with rituals connected with the agriculturalcycle of seeding and harvesting.

Fig. 7. Four dancing clay figurine from Dumesti, part of 12 itemsfound buried together in a pottery jar (after Maxim-Alaiba 1987).

Dance in Prehistoric Europe

213

BEN-SHLOMO D., HILL A. C., GARFINKEL Y. 2009. Fea-sting Between the Revolutions: Evidence from Chalcoli-thic Tel Tsaf. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22:129–150.

BIENERT H. D., FRITZ U. 1989. Die alteste Schildkroten-Darstellung: 9000 Jahre alt. Salamandra 25/2: 112–114.

BIESELE M. 1978. Religion and Folklore. In P. V. Tobias(ed.), The Bushmen. San Hunters and Herders of South-ern Africa. Human and Rousseau. Cape Town and Preto-ria: 162–172.

BOSINSKI G. 1970. Magdalenian Anthropomorphic Figu-res at Gönnerdorf (Western Germany). Preliminary Reporton the 1968 Excavations. Bolletino del Centro Camunodi Studi Preistorici 5: 57–97.

BOSINSKI G., FISCHER G. 1974. Die Menschendarstellun-gen von Göennersdorf der Ausgrabung von 1968. F.Steiner. Wiesbaden.

CONARD N. J. 2003. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures fromsouthwestern Germany and the origins of figurative art.Nature 426: 830–832.

2009. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian ofHohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature459: 248–252.

CONARD N. J., BOLUS M. 2003. Radiocarbon dating theappearance of modern humans and timing of cultural in-novations in Europe: new results and new challenges.Journal of Human Evolution 44: 331–371.

CONARD N. J., BOLUS M., GOLDBERG P., MÜNZEL S. C.2006. The Last Neanderthals and First Modern Humans inthe Swabian Jura. In N. J. Conard (ed.), When Neander-thals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag. Tübingen:305–341.

CONARD N. J., MALINA M., MÜNZEL S. C. 2009. New flutesDocument the Earliest Musical Tradition in SouthwesternGermany. Nature 460: 737–740.

DIETLER M., HAYDEN B. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological andEthnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power.Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington. DC.

DRAGOMIR I. T. 1987. Un vase-support Cucutenien: “laronde de Beresti”. In M. Petrescu-Dimbovita (ed.), La civi-lisation de Cucuteni en contexte européen. Session scien-tifique Iasi-Piatra Neamt, 1984. Universite “Al. I. Cuza”.Iasi: 289–299.

DUMITRESCU V. 1974. Arta Prehistorica În România.Editura Meridiane. Bucharest.

GARFINKEL Y. 1998. Dancing and the Beginning of ArtScenes in the Early Village Communities of the Near Eastand Southeast Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Jour-nal 8(2): 207–237.

2003. Dance at the Dawn of Agriculture. Texas Uni-versity Press. Austin.

GIMBUTAS M. A. 1982. The Goddesses and Gods of OldEurope 6500–3500 B.C., Myths and Cult Images. Univer-sity of California. Berkeley.

1989. The Language of the Goddess. Thames and Hud-son. London.

GORING-MORRIS N., HORWITZ L. K. 2007. Funerals andfeasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East.Antiquity 81(314): 901–919.

GRUBER N. I. 1981. Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in theHebrew Bible. Biblica 62: 328–346.

HAHN J. 1972. Aurignacian Signs, Pendants and Art Ob-jects in Central and Eastern Europe. World Archaeology3: 252–266.

HANNA J. L. 1987. Dance and Religion. In M. Eliade (ed.),Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 4. MacMillan. New York:203–212.

IONESCU B. 1974. Obiecte de cult descoperite la Gumel-nita. Studii si cercetari de istorie veche si arheologie 25:115–118.

KALICZ N. 1970. Clay Gods. The Neolithic and CopperAge in Hungary. Corvina Press. Budapest.

KATZ R. 1982. Boiling Energy. Community HealingAmong the Kalahari Kung. Harvard University Press.Cambridge, MA.

KOREK J. 1987. Szegvár-Tüzköves, A Settlement of theTisza Culture. In P. Raczky (ed.), The Late Neolithic of theTisza Region. Szolnok. Budapest: 47–60.

LANGE R. 1976. The Nature of Dance. An Anthropologi-cal Perspective. International Publications Service. NewYork.

MANTU C. M. 1992. Reprezentari antropomorfe pe cera-mica asezarii Cucuteni A3 de la Scinteia. Studii si cerce-tari de istorie veche si arheologie 43: 307–315.

REFERENCES

Yosef Garfinkel

214

1993. Anthropomorphic Representations from the Pre-cucuteni and Cucuteni Cultures. Anatolica 19: 129–141.

MARINESCU-BÍLCU S. 1974. “Dansul ritual” in repezenta-rile plastice neo-eneolitice din Moldova. Studii si cercetaride istorie veche si arheologie 25: 167–179.

MARSHACK A. 1972. The Roots of Civilization. McGraw.New York.

MARSHALL L. 1969. The Medicine Dance of the !KungBushmen. Africa 39: 347–381.

MAXIM-ALAIBA R. 1987. Le complexe de culte de la phaseCucuteni A3 de Dumesti (dep. de Vaslui). In M. Petrescu-Dimbovita (ed.), La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexteEuropéen. Session scientifique Iasi-Piatra Neamt 1984.Universite “Al. I. Cuza”. Iasi: 269–286.

MCNEILL W. H. 1995. Keeping Together in Time. Danceand Drill in Human History. Harvard University Press.Cambridge, MA.

MOLIST M. M. 1998. Des représentations humaines pein-tes au IXe millénaire BP sur le site de Tell Halula (Valléede L’Euphrate, Syrie). Paléorient 24(1): 81–87.

MÜLLER-KARPE H. 1968. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte,Jungsteinzeit. C.H. Beck. Munich.

NEEDLER W. 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt inThe Brooklyn Museum. The Brooklyn Museum. New York.

NITU A. 1968. Reprezentari Antropomorfe in Decorul Plas-tic al Ceramicii de Stil Cucuteni A. Studii si cercetari deistorie veche 19: 549–561.

1970. Reprezentarile feminine dorsale pe ceramicaNeo-Eneolitica Carpato-Balcanica. Memoria Antiquita-tis 2: 75–99.

RAPPENGLÜCK M. A. 2003. The anthropoid in the sky:Does a 32,000 years old ivory plate show the constella-tion Orion combined with a pregnancy calendar? In pro-ceedings of the SEAC IXth: Symbols, calendars and orien-tations: legacies of astronomy in culture. The Old Obser-vatory. Stockholm: 27–30.

RIMUTE R. V. VON 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen. Berichtder Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 75: 23–147.

ROYCE A. P. 1977. The Anthropology of Dance. IndianaUniversity Press. Bloomington.

SACHS C. 1952. World History of the Dance. Seven Arts.New York.